Autism researcher w/CDC accused of embezzling $1 million

[sharingwisdom]

https://www.cphpost.dk/news/internat...ted-in-us.html

American prosecutors are seeking to extradite a Danish scientist who a federal grand jury in Atlanta has charged with 13 counts of wire fraud and nine counts of money laundering. They allege that Poul Thorsen, 49, stole over $1 million from autism research funding between February 2004 and June 2008, and used the proceeds to buy a home in Atlanta, two cars and a Harley Davidson.

Thorsen helped two Danish government agencies obtain research grants, which amounted to $11 million between 2000 and 2009, whilst he was working as a visiting scientist at the Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the 1990s. He returned to Denmark as the ‘principal investigator’ for the programme, which studied the relationship between autism and exposure to vaccines, allegedly putting him in charge of the administration of the funding.

It is alleged that over the four-year period he submitted over a dozen false invoices from the CDC for research expenses to Aarhus University, where he held a faculty position, instructing them to transfer the funds to a CDC account, which was in fact his personal account.

It was while Thorsen was working in the 1990s at the CDC division of Birth Defects and Developmental Disabilities that the CDC started soliciting grant applications for research into the relationships between autism and exposure to vaccines, cerebral palsy and infection during pregnancy, and childhood development and fetal alcohol exposure. Thorsen saw an opportunity to promote his homeland and played a central role in winning the grant.

Thorsen’s research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as ‘The Danish Study’, is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection.

Each count of wire fraud carries a maximum of 20 years in prison and each count of money laundering a maximum of 10 years in prison, with a fine of up to $250,000 for each count. The federal government will also seeks forfeiture of all property derived from the alleged offenses.

[Full documentary online called "Vaccine Nation" is worth watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ulAX_MLLhY
"we are not as barbaric society where we sacrifice somechildren and maime someinfants for the benefits of others"]

[Glia]

What upsetting news. Perhaps it will turn out that "the Danish study" reflects similar ethical integrity and results.

With respect to the last quote below, it would seem that we do indeed maim some infants, but not for the benefit of other infants!

Thorsen’s research on autism is widely known in academic circles, where he was until this week a highly respected figure. A paper of his on the subject, which is known as ‘The Danish Study’, is quoted extensively to refute the autism vaccine connection.

"we are not as barbaric society where we sacrifice some children and maim some infants for the benefits of others"]

[Dixon]

"we are not as barbaric society where we sacrifice somechildren and maime someinfants for the benefits of others"

Hmmm...not even if a process which "sacrifices", say, 1000 children saves 10 million of them? Would you recommend we sacrifice the 10 million to lethal diseases to save the 1000 from autism or whatever instead?

We sacrifice firemen every year to save larger numbers of folks who would die without them. Every industry sacrifices some workers to industrial accidents etc. so we can have hula hoops, hairspray, cabbages and cars.

Let's not oversimplify the debate by pretending it's a choice between sacrificing children and not sacrificing them. Like so much in life, it's really a choice between what sacrifice is the most reasonable. Are you willing to subject your children to some danger of vaccination side-effects, perhaps even lethal ones, to achieve herd immunity for our overall population, thus saving many other children, or would you rather sacrifice the safety of the overall population and keep your kids safe from the vaccine (perhaps later to contract the disease themselves)?

[sharingwisdom]

There is a difference between choosing to be a fireman knowing what you signed up for and being an involuntary guinea pig. I was used in this way as a child, and I will not elaborate. I just know that I'm not into the paradigm of sacrificing. We don't have to have a Sophie's choice. I have friends who children became autistic immediately after being immunized. Do you have children? What if this happened to your child? Would you want them to be the poster child as they bang their head against the wall or seizure when the day before they were bright, lively 2 year olds?

I do not believe that the vaccines save children. I feel it weakens their immunity and the signs can show up either immediately or years later. I have seen it over and over. The history of vaccines is ridiculous from the start.

I talked to a scientist last year who ran a lab in Livermore working with the top vaccine manufacturers. On the sly, after sharing my feelings and what I knew in my research of vaccines, he told me he wouldn't take the vaccines, that the big "boys" made him put certain things in the vaccines that he disagreed with. In-other-words, he knew they were toxic. He has left that company.

If you watched the movie, Vaccine Nation, you would have heard about the 2000 Secret meeting where the docs were saying they wouldn't take the vaccines. Several of our congress people's have children and grandchildren who came down with Autism after vaccinations.

No, Dixon, I don't believe in sacrificing. I believe in win-win situations. And destroying any child's life isn't ok with me.

I believe the children are our are future
Teach them well and let them lead the way
Show them all the beauty they possess inside
Give them a sense of pride to make it easier
Let the children's laughter remind us how we used to be

Everybody searching for a hero
People need someone to look up to
I never found anyone to fulfill my needs
A lonely place to be
So I learned to depend on me

[Chorus:]
I decided long ago, never to walk in anyone's shadows
If I fail, if I succeed
At least I live as I believe
No matter what they take from me
They can't take away my dignity

Because the greatest love of all
Is happening to me
I found the greatest love of all
Inside of me
The greatest love of all
Is easy to achieve
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all
The greatest love of all....(Whitney Housten)

Hmmm...not even if a process which "sacrifices", say, 1000 children saves 10 million of them? Would you recommend we sacrifice the 10 million to lethal diseases to save the 1000 from autism or whatever instead?

We sacrifice firemen every year to save larger numbers of folks who would die without them. Every industry sacrifices some workers to industrial accidents etc. so we can have hula hoops, hairspray, cabbages and cars.

Let's not oversimplify the debate by pretending it's a choice between sacrificing children and not sacrificing them. Like so much in life, it's really a choice between what sacrifice is the most reasonable. Are you willing to subject your children to some danger of vaccination side-effects, perhaps even lethal ones, to achieve herd immunity for our overall population, thus saving many other children, or would you rather sacrifice the safety of the overall population and keep your kids safe from the vaccine (perhaps later to contract the disease themselves)?

[Braggi]

... I do not believe that the vaccines save children. I feel it weakens their immunity and the signs can show up either immediately or years later. ...

You "believe" and you "feel" because you don't understand how the immune system works nor how vaccines work to strengthen the immune system.

... you would have heard about the 2000 Secret meeting where the docs were saying they wouldn't take the vaccines. Several of our congress people's have children and grandchildren who came down with Autism after vaccinations. ...

Yup. "Secret" meeting. How secret was it? The "Autism" had nothing to do with the vaccines, of course.

...
Learning to love yourself
It is the greatest love of all
The greatest love of all....(Whitney Housten)

Now THERE'S a spokesperson for your cause. Ms. Crackhead herself. Let's see, that "greatest love" thing. Hmmm. "I used to think I was a narcissist, but now I realize, it really is all about ME!"

... No, Dixon, I don't believe in sacrificing. I believe in win-win situations. And destroying any child's life isn't ok with me. ...

But destroying millions of lives is OK with you? Have you ever known anyone with polio? I have. Several. It's a terrible, horrible disease. I'm so glad vaccines have saved you and me from getting it, even if the vaccine isn't perfect; though it very nearly is. I've also met a few rubella birth-defect babies. Have you? You'd most likely get off your soap box if you had. Vaccines have nearly done away with that messy little issue as well.

The fact is, we have it so good in this day and age largely because of vaccines and the immunity they have conferred upon our population. The fact you don't see the downsides of these illnesses doesn't mean they are no longer a threat. It means that modern sanitation and vaccines have prevented the holocaust that would have befallen us without them. Just keep up the anti-vax thing and it will get worse.

The anti-vax movement is the clearest example of widespread abuse of the internet and the wholesale distribution of blatantly false propaganda intended to sell books and bogus cures and to aggrandize a few self-appointed gurus who are merely the latest in a set of charlatans going back to the beginning of history and probably before.

It's a shame.

-Jeff

[Braggi]

Here's a link to an article discussing the current thinking about a rise in developmental disabilities being on the rise. Frankly, I don't believe it. When I was in school, some kids were just considered at the low end of the "bell-shaped curve." Now every kid "down there" needs a diagnosis and according to this article, they can easily get one.

Developmental Disability Rising in U.S. Kids

I have no problem with vaccines being scrutinized as a possible cause if there is, indeed, a rise as reported. However, I think research money could also be spent looking at true causes including the previously mentioned bell-shaped curve and the plain laziness my daughter reports regularly from her classmates. Perhaps some of the developmental disability can be chalked up to loafing on the part of students or ineptitude on the part of teachers and parents. Of course, that would require some self-examination, which we, as a nation, are notoriously bad at.

-Jeff

[sharingwisdom]

Jeff, you talk from a place of 'put down' over and over, not facts. You call me names like a 10 year old would, just like what happens in a dysfunction family situation, attempting to shun and humiliate me and others, but it's all a reflection of you and your emotional state. How you represent yourself on this board is no different than politicians mud-slinging. You want peace but throw out anger. Many people have stopped writing on this board because of those of you who do this. It's disrespectful and not a place to share views non-threateningly. I hope Barry reads this.

There are many medical doctors all over the world who would disagree with you on immunization as well as scholarly scientists and researchers. There has been so much written, but of course, I don't expect you to read it. Your mode is to continue to cyber-bully. When people come not only from their mind & knowledge but from their heart, you go after their jugular. I invite you to look at your projected anger because it doesn't make for anything but a closed circuit. I wonder what making others wrong does for you.

"A Rattlesnake, if cornered, will become so angry it will bite itself. That is exactly what the harboring of hate and resentment against others is - a biting of oneself. We think we are harming others in holding these spites and hates, but the deeper harm is to ourselves." ~E. Stanley Jones

You "believe" and you "feel" because you don't understand how the immune system works nor how vaccines work to strengthen the immune system.

Yup. "Secret" meeting. How secret was it? The "Autism" had nothing to do with the vaccines, of course.

Now THERE'S a spokesperson for your cause. Ms. Crackhead herself. Let's see, that "greatest love" thing. Hmmm. "I used to think I was a narcissist, but now I realize, it really is all about ME!"

But destroying millions of lives is OK with you? Have you ever known anyone with polio? I have. Several. It's a terrible, horrible disease. I'm so glad vaccines have saved you and me from getting it, even if the vaccine isn't perfect; though it very nearly is. I've also met a few rubella birth-defect babies. Have you? You'd most likely get off your soap box if you had. Vaccines have nearly done away with that messy little issue as well.

The fact is, we have it so good in this day and age largely because of vaccines and the immunity they have conferred upon our population. The fact you don't see the downsides of these illnesses doesn't mean they are no longer a threat. It means that modern sanitation and vaccines have prevented the holocaust that would have befallen us without them. Just keep up the anti-vax thing and it will get worse.

The anti-vax movement is the clearest example of widespread abuse of the internet and the wholesale distribution of blatantly false propaganda intended to sell books and bogus cures and to aggrandize a few self-appointed gurus who are merely the latest in a set of charlatans going back to the beginning of history and probably before.

It's a shame.

-Jeff

[Dixon]

While I love Jeff--yes, contrary to popular belief, he is a lovable fellow--I would agree with you, sharingwisdom, that his dismissal of ideas he disagrees with can sometimes be a bit too facile, and he doesn't always sufficiently qualify his sometimes absolutistic-sounding statements. And too, his frustration can sharpen his tongue. Sometimes, I've refrained from giving him a "gratitude" for a post I've agreed with because I didn't want to endorse the way he'd said it. But then, most of us have been guilty of these foibles from time to time.

Take your post for instance, sharingwisdom. You mostly avoid addressing the specific issues Jeff had brought up, such as his points about polio and rubella and his brief reference to your use of the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" ("after this, therefore because of this") fallacy by assuming that vaccines caused autism because kids came down with autism after being vaccinated. Rather than addressing those issues, you launch an ad hominem attack (a fallacy which involves attacking the messenger instead of addressing the message), in which you characterize him as a kinda verbally abusive character while at the same time comparing him to a 10-year-old, a mud-slinging politician, a bully, and a rattlesnake. Even if we assume some kernel of truth in these descriptions, your evasion of the substantive issues he'd mentioned in favor of an ad hominem attack on him are mighty ironic. Talk about projection--and, specifically, projected anger!:intcombust:

Jeff, you talk from a place of 'put down' over and over, not facts. You call me names like a 10 year old would, just like what happens in a dysfunction family situation, attempting to shun and humiliate me and others, but it's all a reflection of you and your emotional state. How you represent yourself on this board is no different than politicians mud-slinging. You want peace but throw out anger. Many people have stopped writing on this board because of those of you who do this. It's disrespectful and not a place to share views non-threateningly. I hope Barry reads this.
There are many medical doctors all over the world who would disagree with you on immunization as well as scholarly scientists and researchers. There has been so much written, but of course, I don't expect you to read it. Your mode is to continue to cyber-bully. When people come not only from their mind & knowledge but from their heart, you go after their jugular. I invite you to look at your projected anger because it doesn't make for anything but a closed circuit. I wonder what making others wrong does for you.
"A Rattlesnake, if cornered, will become so angry it will bite itself. That is exactly what the harboring of hate and resentment against others is - a biting of oneself. We think we are harming others in holding these spites and hates, but the deeper harm is to ourselves." ~E. Stanley Jones

[Dixon]

I just know that I'm not into the paradigm of sacrificing. We don't have to have a Sophie's choice...No, Dixon, I don't believe in sacrificing. I believe in win-win situations.

You're "...not into the paradigm of sacrificing", eh? I suppose you're not into the paradigm of gravity either? Both gravity and sacrifice are universal laws of life. Nobody likes sacrifice,and everybody loves win-win situations, but guess what? Life is perverse; it refuses to give us our wonderful sacrifice-free fantasy world. If too many people refuse to have their children vaccinated, they sacrifice the lives of however many innocent children die from the resulting plague. If we choose to save the many by requiring vaccination (as we've successfully done with polio among others), we sacrifice the relatively few who may die from vaccination side-effects. There are no other options that I can see. There may be particular instances wherein a vaccine doesn't work, but that doesn't change the overall principle: make a small sacrifice to avoid a larger one. Just like life itself: every time we make a choice, we choose one path and sacrifice the opportunity to pursue a different one. Life is, among other things, a series of sacrifices. "Not believing" in sacrifices is like not believing in gravity, LOL!

[Braggi]

Jeff, you talk from a place of 'put down' over and over, not facts. You call me names like a 10 year old would ...

Really? I've looked over this thread and I haven't seen that. I see nothing to apologize for. Please point it out for me if I've missed something.

... There are many medical doctors all over the world who would disagree with you on immunization as well as scholarly scientists and researchers. There has been so much written, but of course, I don't expect you to read it. Your mode is to continue to cyber-bully. ...

I've probably read far more medical research papers on the topic of vaccines than you have. In fact, I quote them a lot and provide links to primary research and well written articles ... a lot. I've also read a lot of anti-vax articles, some of which you have posted links to. The thing is, by returning to the original studies or to articles containing valid criticisms of the anti-vax articles I've been able to KNOWLEDGEABLY dismiss the anti-vaxers statements. I find few containing any points I agree with.

I've seen a few things that repeat themselves over and over in this debate.

First, most anti-vaxers have no idea where their movement was born out of: a fraudulent article published in Lancet a couple decades back. The author has been completely and thoroughly discredited and de-credentialed, as he should have been. Most anti-vaxers [who are aware of the situation] have, amazingly, defended this guy.

Most authors of anti-vax articles are peddlers of such nonsense as homeopathy, "supplements" and chiropractic to prevent and treat childhood diseases. I think of these people as frauds and hucksters at best, and at worst, as mass murderers. The history of the issue has proven my thinking. More and more people die every year as a result of failure to immunize children. These are preventable deaths.

The people who continue to read and believe the anti-vax articles, most of which are exceedingly poorly researched and written, are moved by compelling individual stories but lack the ability or the desire to understand the underlying statistics that prove the case for mass vaccination in most cases.

Most of the people in the anti-vax movement are extremely critical of anything published in scientific, peer-reviewed journals but will believe anything that argues against science without question. Kind of makes a person wonder what ever happened to critical analysis of sources and data. The ability to think critically is severely damaged or broken in some circles.

I don't see how pointing out distinctions between truths and falsehoods and asking a person to back up statements with facts and figures is cyber-bullying. Before I post a link to an article I usually consider the source and often go back to the original research papers to make sure I agree with the authors of the article. Sometimes I make mistakes when I post here, but not often. When it's pointed out to me that I've made an error, I'm usually graceful in my retraction. Go ahead and prove me wrong, but do it with some valid research from a valid source.

-Jeff

[Glia]

It would seem that another woman has her doubts about vaccines, with regard to both what is in them and how many children under 5 in particular are "recommended" to receive.

None other than Dr. Christiane Northrup has a section on this (pp 517-519) in the 2010 edition of her hefty now-classic tome Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom. Here are some excerpts (bold emphasis is mine):

"While the idea behind vaccines is certainly a good one -- preventing diseases that can be fatal -- the truth is that health is not a matter of avoiding all infectious diseases. In fact, childhood illnesses are necessary to mature the immune system and render it resilient in the same way that children need to learn to tolerate disappointment to develop into mature adults.

... I am concerned by the sheer number of vaccines very young children receive today. I believe that they are connected not only to on increase in childhood asthma and allergies but also to the increase in diabetes, ADHD, and autism. By immunizing against so many childhood diseases, we may be unwittingly creating suboptimal immune resilience that is coming out as chronic disease. Although this idea is controversial, evidence does exist for it in the medical literature.

The bottom line is that vaccines are neither 100 percent safe nor 100 percent effective. They often contin preservatives that prevent bacterial or fungal contamination, as well as adjuvants -- substances that cause inflammation, thus activating the immune system so the vaccine will have the intended effect.

Adjuvants often contain mercury or aluminum, which can be toxic to the nervous system as well as to the kidneys.

... While clearly not everyone is susceptible to these, children who either have a genetic predisposition or who are exposed to other compromising environmental factors may indeed suffer tragically debilitating effects from vaccines ironically designed to keep them healthy."

Dr. Northrup's observations about inflammation being the root cause of these conditions and the danger of the adjuvant substances, especially mercury and aluminum, correspond to the clinical observations and biomedical treatment protocols developed by Dr. Kenneth Bock, one of the pioneering "Defeat Autism Now" doctors. It also jibes with the growing realization among both alternative and allopathic practitioners that chronic "smouldering" inflammation is a very harmful state and the root cause of many chronic disease and autoimmune disorders.

... I do not believe that the vaccines save children. I feel it weakens their immunity and the signs can show up either immediately or years later. I have seen it over and over. The history of vaccines is ridiculous from the start.

I talked to a scientist last year who ran a lab in Livermore working with the top vaccine manufacturers. On the sly, after sharing my feelings and what I knew in my research of vaccines, he told me he wouldn't take the vaccines, that the big "boys" made him put certain things in the vaccines that he disagreed with. In-other-words, he knew they were toxic. He has left that company.

If you watched the movie, Vaccine Nation, you would have heard about the 2000 Secret meeting where the docs were saying they wouldn't take the vaccines. Several of our congress people's have children and grandchildren who came down with Autism after vaccinations.
...

[Braggi]

... None other than Dr. Christiane Northrup has a section on this ...

Glia, nearly every sentence of that post is without merit. Rather than shoot holes in every point I'll suggest you find yourself a better expert. Here's what Science Based Medicine (a website with a nearly impeccable record of finding the true bottom line on medical claims) had to say about Dr. Northrup: Christiane Northrup, MD: Science Tainted with Strange Beliefs

Enjoy reading up.

-Jeff

[sharingwisdom]

Hmmm. In response to your first note, Dixon, I have in the past given information about vaccines, posted articles discussing just what Jeff asked, named doctors. Even the article I posted, which is the title of this thread, shows one of the connections. I spoke of the scientist I had a conversation with and there is more to that story that cannot be disclosed due to holding confidence. I asked you if you have children and how would you react if this happened to your child as it has to several of my friends’ children. You didn’t answer except saying that sacrifice is part of life. You diverted to something that dissociated the question. This is what has happened several weeks ago with Jeff…he never read the article that I posted which was written by a board-certified doctor but was angry at me because I posted it. I even asked him why he took it personally but was never answered. I mean, where does one go with that kind of reactive response?

What I've come up against in participating in this forum, is that what I post is bypassed to an emotional reaction for those who don't agree, or an assumption is made of what I meant without asking me. There is not an action of just saying they disagree and adding their viewpoint or info. I approachable.

As I've said many times before, I'm fine agreeing to disagree. But a pattern has taken hold. Again, if I answer the person, it's dismissed or ignored because it doesn't meet their criteria of people/doctors or situations who they feel are qualified, by their opinion or standards. I'm called a crackpot, a narcissist, with no knowledge of what I share. So why say anything more to answer them? I was already dismissed. I feel it’s the time for this pattern had to be addressed and brought to consciousness. Why should I be censored or ridiculed for submitting an article just because it differs from another's viewpoint? I hope you can hear me in what I'm writing. (and it's fine to disagree)

We've had our differences, but I also know that you have appreciated many articles I have posted because you send 'gratitude' often. And I want to acknowledge this, and say, "thank you". Even Jeff has sent 'gratitudes' for someone who finds me "offensive." But if an article is not of the opinion of others, this is where the pattern starts again. Can this stop? Are we willing, as a community, to change the pattern?

Just so you know, since Miles decided to change my board name to my real name (and Dragon is my birth name in case anyone was going to take this someplace), I have a 26 year medical background. I was a dental hygienist in my last life before retiring to continue being a holistic healing practitioner full time, which I've been for 32 years (successfully) as well as teacher, a published writer of two books, presenter on TV and have lectured all over the Bay area to therapists and survivors on the healing of trauma and abuse.

And yes, I know people who have had polio (to answer Jeff's question). My best friend in High school had polio and had one leg shorter than the other wearing two different size shoes. Even the SF Chronicle wrote about the oral vaccine being contaminated when I was a kid https://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/artic...2/MN173141.DTL
Here's some statistics around the outbreak of polio if it is of interest. https://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio.htm

And because the government says vaccines are not contaminated now doesn't make me believe them. In 1977, Dr Jonas Salk, who developed the first polio vaccine, testified along with other scientists, that mass inoculation against polio was the cause of most polio cases throughout the USA since 1961. (Science 4/4/77 "Abstracts" ). The February1981 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that 90% of obstetricians and 66% of pediatricians refused to take the rubella vaccine. If the government can allow Wall street to get away with the crime of the century, lie about Iraq, the CIA have more covert actions in the last 50 years than any other country, torture people w/o a trial, diminish our constitutional rights, grope 6 year olds at the airport, and on and on, what makes it different when the CDC is supporting embezzlers who are research doctors to push their vaccines?

And more about the Congressman I mentioned in my note to Jeff. https://www.vaccineinfo.net/issues/m...y_recall.shtml
On July 18, 2000 the Committee conducted a hearing entitled, "Mercury in Medicine: Are We Taking Unnecessary Risks?" During the hearing, the FDA admitted that children are being exposed to unsafe levels of mercury through vaccines containing Thimerosal. It was also determined that symptoms of mercury poisoning mimic symptoms of autism -- a disease that has reached epidemic levels in the United States. However, the FDA has chosen to allow pharmaceutical companies to merely phase out their use of Thimerosal, leaving mercury-containing vaccines at public and private health facilities.

In his letter to Secretary Shalala, Chairman Burton (whose grandson developed autism after a series of vaccinations) stated:
"We all know and accept that mercury is a neurotoxin, and yet the FDA has failed to recall the 50 vaccines that contain Thimerosal...On their own website, the FDA states, 'lead, cadmium, and mercury are examples of elements that are toxic when present at relatively low levels'.

"Our children are the future of this country. As a Government we have a responsibility to do everything within our power to protect them from harm, including ensuring that vaccines are safe and effective. Every day that mercury-containing vaccines remain on the market is another day HHS is putting 8,000 children at risk. Given that Thimerosal-free vaccines are available, and the known risk of mercury toxicity, to leave Thimerosal-containing vaccines on the market is unconscionable."

Were you interested in the a list of doctors (my website has many as does my FB) who have found vaccines a problem?
Dr. Larry Palevsky is a board-certified pediatrician trained at the New York School of Medicine, and one of the leading physicians in the country who is actually able to, compellingly and convincingly, provide sound, rational, scientific justification as to why you need to seriously reconsider the wisdom of choosing vaccines as an option to prevent against most diseases. https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/14/Expert-Pediatrician-Exposes-Vaccine-Myths.aspx
James Howenstein MD https://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james.htm
Alan Cantwell MD: https://www.whale.to/v/cantwell.html
Russel Blaylock, M.D. https://orbisvitae.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=2387&site_id=1#import
Len Horowitz DDS https://www.tetrahedron.org/articles...estigates.html

And I agree that Gravity is a law. Sacrificing is not a Law of the Universe though. I wonder where you learned that. It is a human generational dynamic that is about giving up a part of the whole of oneself or life, to satisfy another's needs or expectations, to appease others for what is seen as love or safety or to grow in certain ways for what is seen as a higher good. And we may have different understandings of that word. To me, life does not have to be a series of sacrifices, a dissociation from oneself if childhood issues are worked on and cleared up, because there lies the origins of dysfunctional expectations and behavioral patterns that are passed on to the next generation. There lies the causes of suffering and war. There are better ways to learn and grow in this world.

There are courses being taught not only in universities but in all areas of the world on co-creative ways to relate, communicate and work out issues-- Gay and Kathryn Hendricks, PhD., Marshall Rosenfeld, and many more.

I teach classes where compromise becomes consensus (win-win), where the concept of sacrifice becomes finding ways not to loose oneself, to stay connected and centered, to know wholeness and connection to others in our very complex world. I work with supporting people in changing their beliefs that are non-serving and work with a technology (which is spiritually-based) to witness this. I think out of the box, always have, always will. I walk my talk and work on myself on a daily basis.

I’m in the process of preparing for moving and co-creating a new home for myself. I don’t have further time to discuss this. It took me over three hours to really sit with all that has been written and presented. I have shared info, identified patterns, asked questions, and given suggestions of ways we can gear into a direction to support people to post, without it being a war on what is right or wrong, without it being an emotionally-based character assassination and name calling round, of a possibility to accept that we are humans with a diversity of backgrounds and experiences, and there is room for it all. Is anyone onboard here? Because if you’re not, then what are the options in having a community bulletin board?

You're "...not into the paradigm of sacrificing", eh? I suppose you're not into the paradigm of gravity either? Both gravity and sacrifice are universal laws of life. Nobody likes sacrifice,and everybody loves win-win situations, but guess what? Life is perverse; it refuses to give us our wonderful sacrifice-free fantasy world. If too many people refuse to have their children vaccinated, they sacrifice the lives of however many innocent children die from the resulting plague. If we choose to save the many by requiring vaccination (as we've successfully done with polio among others), we sacrifice the relatively few who may die from vaccination side-effects. There are no other options that I can see. There may be particular instances wherein a vaccine doesn't work, but that doesn't change the overall principle: make a small sacrifice to avoid a larger one. Just like life itself: every time we make a choice, we choose one path and sacrifice the opportunity to pursue a different one. Life is, among other things, a series of sacrifices. "Not believing" in sacrifices is like not believing in gravity, LOL!

[Braggi]

Dear Sharing,

Do you believe human consumption of fossil fuels contributes to global warming?

-Jeff

[podfish]

Jeff, you talk from a place of 'put down' over and over, not facts. You call me names like a 10 year old would, just like what happens in a dysfunction family situation, attempting to shun and humiliate me and others, but it's all a reflection of you and your emotional state.... . Your mode is to continue to cyber-bully. When people come not only from their mind & knowledge but from their heart, you go after their jugular.

+1 (still trying for + notation, Barry!) to several other posters who also fail to see the name calling in Jeff's posts.
I've objected before to the quick resort to pop psychoanalysis of one's "opponents" in an argument. They're opponents in a technical, not personal, sense. It's bad for a discussion when one of the participants finds the arguments either personally threatening or insulting because they're dismissive. Think of it as someone's way of expressing a score for the ideas you've tried to espouse. Usually those (of us, I'll cop to that style myself) who are dismissive or disrespectful of these ideas will back that up with some reasons why. Feel free to respond to those ideas in kind! It's actually rare - on this forum, at least - to find people extending that tone to the people behind the ideas. In this case like you reacted as if that was the case, though I bet on re-reading Jeff's post you won't find that's true.

["Mad" Miles]

Sharing Wisdom, Ms. Dragon,

You wrote: "Just so you know, since Miles decided to change my board name to my real name (and Dragon is my birth name in case anyone was going to take this someplace)"

In case you weren't already aware, whatever name you register under here on waccobb is in your personal profile, which is available to anyone also so registered. You can even see the avatar/user names of every other waccoon who has visited your profile page. I didn't "decide" or "change" anything, I merely acknowledged what is already available to any member of this community.

I want to credit you for using your real name when registering with this board. That is a good thing. When I become curious as to who is behind the language of a poster here, I check their profile. If their listed name is clearly a pseudonym, such as, "Iam Somebody", or something similar, I tend to discount what they have to say. Because they don't have the courage and honesty to stand behind their words. You do. Brava!

Parenthetically, yes I can imagine circumstances in which someone would not want to, or for reasons of personal and family security cannot, share their actual name when registering. Using it, or not, is not my only criteria for evaluating integrity. It's just one part of the puzzle. Other things, like cogency, syntax, grammar, clarity of thought, range of opinions and point of view, their politics, other expressed values and desires, etc. enter into what shapes my impression of my fellow waccoons.

This issue of, "you outed me on waccobb!!??", has come up before. It's silly. If you're here you're out. (The "you're" and "you" I'm referring to here in this paragraph is anyone on waccobb, not just Sharing/Judy/Wisdom/Dragon) Or not, depending on what you typed when you registered. I admire those who are willing and able to be honest. I am skeptical, but tolerant, with those who have chosen not to. Ultimately, "What's in a name? A rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet."


(For those who are sensitive to what might be considered narcissistic auto-referential and self-indulgent prose, may I humble suggest you read no further? Don't say you haven't been warned! Your response to the following is on you, not me!)

My name, by the way, is Robert Miles Mendenhall, aka Miles Mendenhall, or R. Miles Mendenhall. I was Bobby until I was ten or so, then Bob (also the personal name of my maternal grandfather) until eighteen when I chose to switch to my middle name. I've been Miles ever since.

Or "Toxic Asshole" as the case may be. Sometimes people seem to think I'm "Entertaining Raconteur", or not. As the case may be. Opinions differ.

The "Mad" in my nom de keyboard came to me some six or seven years ago, because I regularly referred to myself as a, "mad forwarder of political emails" (which I still am). A woman replied with "Hey mad miles" and I flashed on it and took it as my own. I'm a bit of an Anglophile, I like Brit slang (and many other forms of slang) and like the quadruple entendre of passionate/crazy/angry/intense, etc. contained in my use of "Mad". Plus I'm a sucker for alliteration.

So for good or ill, my handle here is "Mad" Miles. When thin-skinned reactive love bombers focus on the "Mad" part, and use it to try and characterize me negatively, it turns into a litmus test for separating the actively rational from the reactively emotional. A welcome, but unintended, consequence.

I hope I've made myself clear? Google Nominalism for a treat about a philosophical fallacy and delusional approach to thinking. See? I try to reward my own kind whenever I can. The class of obsessive and curious readers!

One of us! One of us! One of us!

[Glia]

The "merit" assessment is your uneducated opinion.

I'm not about to waste my time reading garbage from with some male who does "research studies." The majority of these "studies" give the results that the researcher and/or the sponsor of the "study" wants to get. The "studies" that give results other than the desired ones are conveniently not published and buried. If they can get a big numeric result that the media idiots can mindlessly parrot (i.e., "male circumcision reduces the transmission of HIV by 60%!"), all the better. The majority of Americans, especially the corporate media, cannot tell legitimate results from junk science.

Women are using their intuition and believing what they see, not what they have been told to see. That's the whole point of the post. Female intuition is not given the respect that it deserves in this society (the bottom line message of Northrup's huge book), especially in the male-dominated, left-brained science and scientific (allopathic) medicine fields.

Glia, nearly every sentence of that post is without merit. Rather than shoot holes in every point I'll suggest you find yourself a better expert. Here's what Science Based Medicine (a website with a nearly impeccable record of finding the true bottom line on medical claims) had to say about Dr. Northrup: Christiane Northrup, MD: Science Tainted with Strange Beliefs

Enjoy reading up.

-Jeff

[pbrinton]

I just know that I'm not into the paradigm of sacrificing. We don't have to have a Sophie's choice.

I think that perhaps part of the problem here is that "sacrifice" is not the proper term. It conjures up visions throwing virgins into the volcano to appease the gods. What is happening here, and what happens with the vast majority of decisions we make, is a cost/benefit calculation. I know this sounds cold when you are talking about the life of your child, but really it is not; it simply describes the process we go through every day in great and small ways as we decide our actions. Surely nobody would contend that any significant action, however well-intentioned and seemingly beneficial, is without harm to someone or something? Of course, when it comes to many trivial day-to-day decisions the benefits are so obvious, and the harm so trivial that we do not even give any thought to the calculation.

In matters of public policy, on the other hand, these calculations are made at every stage, and when it comes to matters of public health it gets very complex indeed. In these areas there is literally no such thing as a decision that does not have costs as well as benefits. So we are indeed at all times making Sophie's choices. To say that you are not "into" this is simply to ignore undeniable fact. You are declining to acknowledge or address the real complexity of the issue. You have a valid point of view, and good arguments, but I believe they are leading you to the wrong conclusions. I think you are taking a small part of the truth and elevating it into the whole truth. Your concerns are important, but they are not the determining factor; they need to be weighed along with all of the costs and the benefits. To do otherwise risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater, or worse, thowing out the baby and keeping the bathwater.

In the case of vaccinations, the calculation goes like this. A disease, let us take polio, causes a certain number of deaths every year, and also results in a fairly quantifiable degree of suffering for a certain number of sufferers. This includes not just the people who fall sick; other children cannot engage in enjoyable activities like swimming for fear of getting the disease. It also includes the economic costs of treatment. This total calculation represents the costs of the disease.

Now say someone comes up with a preventative measure, in the form of vaccination. First it is determined that it is effective, or rather its effectiveness is measured. Next, its costs are determined, to the greatest extent possible. These include economic costs, and also side effects, both of the vaccine itself and of the method of delivery. There is no such thing as a treatment that will not harm some of the people being treated. This amount of harm is included in the cost side of the calculation. Set against this is the benefit of the vaccine, which is the extent to which we avoid the costs of the disease we are preventing. In the case of polio, and other diseases, it was decided that the benefits of the vaccines vastly outweigh the costs.

So how does all this relate to the idea of sacrifice? We are saying as a society that we are willing to accept a certain amount of harm coming to a certain number of people in order to avoid much greater harm for a much greater number of people. That is all well and good when you are not the parent of one of the unfortunate victims of this calculation. To you it looks as though your child has been deliberately sacrificed for the good of the rest. This is a quite understandable reaction, but it is a false one. They are not in fact being victimized by society any more than a person who got polio before the vaccine was introduced was being victimized by society. Each of them was the victim of the laws of chance, and they just drew the short straw. I do not say this callously. My heart goes out to these people. They are in fact taking the hit for the rest of us. But everyone who was vaccinated took the same risk, and any of them could have been the ones hit.

So what tends to happen is that some people focus on the emotional issue of these victims of the policy, and they are right to do so. Everything that can be done for these people should be done, and like all victims they need passionate advocates. All to easily we accept the need for some to suffer harm and then forget them when they do. We must not, however, allow this natural sympathy to persuade us that this suffering was unnecessary and avoidable, and that we should stop doing the thing that is causing it. All of the calculations we made when we decided to institute the policy are still valid. A very large number of people who would otherwise have suffered are not suffering.

The problem is exacerbated by the fact that these people are suffering because of a deliberate action that was taken, and are therefore seen as "victims" of that action, whereas people who got polio were just seen as unlucky. But suppose we gave in and stopped vaccinating people; now the people who as a result get polio are now truly victims of a deliberate policy. We know that we have a tool that will keep them from getting sick, and because of a small number of people who suffer harm from the use of the tool we have withheld it.

I am aware that the ways in which these decisions are made, and the debates around them, are distorted by commercial interests and entrenched ideas and other such things. We must always be on the alert for any such influences and we must always be willing to reexamine issues in the light of new information. However it is not a valid argument to point to these influences and use them to reject wholesale every statement from the other side. Yes, you can argue that vaccinations should be stopped if you can find valid reasons why. The fact that someone may making vast amounts of money from them, or the fact that the decision to use them might have been made by elderly white males (if indeed that is what happened) may be regrettable and worthy of criticism, but do not themselves have any bearing on whether or not we should require the vaccination of children.

Similarly the Thiomersal/Autism debate does not constitute a valid argument for not vaccinating children. Unless you can show that the total number of people and the degree of harm they sustain outweighs the interests of the people who would otherwise get the diseases being vaccinated against, and the resultant social costs, then even if all you say is true, at best you have an argument for changing the constituents or method of application of the vaccine (which has in fact happened in the case of Thiomersal.)

Finally the argument is made that it is all right for some people to refrain from vaccinating their children because of the phenomenon of herd immunity, which means (somewhat oversimplified) that as long as a certain percentage of the population is vaccinated (different for each disease/vaccine combination), the disease will not take hold. These people are accepting the benefit without sharing the risk. They are getting a free ride at everyone else's expense. Sometimes we have to do things we did not want to do because the law says so. We may not agree with it, we may even think that the law is actively harmful. In this case we can try to change the law, but as long as it is law, we cannot simply exempt ourselves from it. I understand the concept of principled refusal, but when refusal confers a benefit that you are avoiding paying for (by sharing the risk) then this is self-serving behavior, not the application of a principle.

Patrick Brinton

[podfish]

....The problem is exacerbated by the fact that these people are suffering because of a deliberate action that was taken, and are therefore seen as "victims" of that action, whereas people who got polio were just seen as unlucky.

I think that's the heart of it. In many people's minds there's no blame to assign if there's no action taken, and people are quick to assign blame (and loathe to take actions that get them blamed).
We do need to acknowledge that there is some real, individual premeditated sacrifice too, though. It's not unrealistic to weigh your individual risk of harm from vaccine vs. risk of catching a disease and decide that, since everyone else is immunized you're safer if you go unvaccinated. Yeah, if everyone follows that strategy it doesn't work - it's a variant of the prisoner's dilemma. I don't hear many anti-vaxxers making such a baldly selfish argument.

[pbrinton]

It's not unrealistic to weigh your individual risk of harm from vaccine vs. risk of catching a disease and decide that, since everyone else is immunized you're safer if you go unvaccinated.

Not unrealistic, but not ethical either.

Patrick Brinton

[podfish]

Not unrealistic, but not ethical either.

yeah, I guess I should have stated that explicitly. My point was to the logic of it - it's plausible to claim you're being asked to sacrifice (increase your personal risk) to benefit others. ( I -did- say it was "baldly selfish").